Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-11-Speech-3-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061011.16.3-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if this debate were to be confined to weighing up the arguments for and against anti-dumping measures for leather footwear from China and Vietnam, it would truly serve no purpose. European countries are divided on this issue because producers’ interests are in conflict with those of distributors. This is a statement of fact, not a matter for outrage. We should be asking a different question: does a common European interest exist? How would one define it? In my opinion we can and must try to define it, because a divided Europe is a weaker Europe. However, it can be done only if we start from a strategic and realistic vision of Europe's position in the market and in world trade and remain bound by principles and figures.
One of these principles is the defence of the European consumer: among other things, the producers’ requirement, that is to say the ‘made in’, is sacrosanct: first of all, because it signifies more information and therefore more openness (this is a European principle); and, secondly, because it transpires that a drastic fall in the costs of importing leather shoes has not in fact been matched by a reduction in retail prices. On the contrary, it has become clear that there exist in Europe unearned incomes from this situation and that these too are a cause of the danger. The tariffs that have been imposed for two years are a reasonable compromise measure, which also endorses a correct method of respecting the interests of all parties."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples